Posted
by
Zonk
on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @12:33PM
from the new-toys-for-everyone dept.

Microsoft is gearing up for another big update to Xbox Live, and soon they'll be offering a friend of a friend feature that will allow users to peruse their friends' friend lists. It's a voluntary service, and is gated by your age to avoid any parental fears. If you'd rather turn it off ahead of time, they already have a dedicated site set up for that purpose. (Gamertag login required.) That update will be dropping on December 4th. Relatedly, they're also rolling out a whole bunch of new backwards compatability options for your old Xbox games. Highlights include support for: Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance, Burnout 2: Point of Impact, Forgotten Realms: Demon Stone, Indiana Jones And The Emperors Tomb, Star Wars: Jedi Starfighter, Syberia II, The Bard's Tale, Worms 3D. There's also support for a slew of sports titles going all the way back to 2003.

Actually, the big news for me in that list is "Lord of the Rings: The Third Age". I've been itching to replay that for months, but now that I've given away my original Xbox, had no way of doing so. It was an interesting and ambitious attempt at making a Final Fantasy-style RPG out of the LOTR franchise and even though it didn't work perfectly, the production values were high enough that I'm looking forward to going back to it.

All the games that I wished were on the back-compat list have been backwards compatible for a while now. Except for one. I recently bought Deus Ex: Invisible War (for something like $4) knowing that it wasn't on the back-compat list but hoping that it would be on the next release. I've always been disappointed about that, especially since there are a few Barbie games that are backwards compatible. I have an xbox at home, but the place it was in is too dusty and some dust got in the tray, and now no discs ar

The Barbie games (and other crap) in the list probably got BC almost for free because they used the same core game engine as .That or there were enough games on the same engine to justify the BC work for that engine.

that they're still adding backwards compatibility 2 years after release. The real need for it diminishes as time passes, I would think. Personally, I'm waiting for some better video codec support so I don't need to transcode streamed video.

Personally I'm of the opinion that if it uses the Xbox name then it should be compatible with Xbox titles. Same for PlayStation.It is nice to see them continue support for Xbox titles, I am enjoying going through the games I missed first time around. Especially seeing as Sony seem to have given up on backwards compatibility. On the flip side, they do still sell the PS2 and you can't say the same for the Xbox.As a side note, Xbox games seem to difficult to get hold of/expensive. For example, I have seen KOTO

It is nice to see them continue support for Xbox titles, I am enjoying going through the games I missed first time around. Especially seeing as Sony seem to have given up on backwards compatibility. On the flip side, they do still sell the PS2 and you can't say the same for the Xbox.

PS3 has 1 version / 5 versions without backwards compatibility (BC), 2 of the remaining have ~80% BC, the other 2 have 90+% BC.

360 has 1 version / 4 versions without BC, the remaining 3 have ~40% BC.

Wii is ~99% BC with GC titles.

I don't see Sony being against BC but they did trim it to reduce the price. MS has paid lip service to BC but isn't really that into it.

You realize that they are writing this emulator without having access to any of the specs for the CPU or GPU that were in the original xbox. It's not as simple are writing a 1:1 emulator simply because they don't have access to all the information to do that, they're effectively reverse engineering the original xbox to make sure that each game works. Because the emulation isn't perfect they don't have as large of a percentage of games, and they individually test each one. The fact that two years after release they're still updating the backwards compatibility list and still working on the emulator is pretty impressive in of itself.

Not to mention that the Xbox emulator on the Xbox 360 renders the game at a higher resolution then the original xbox did, with Anti-Aliasing to boot. This is why Xbox games typically look better on the Xbox 360. Overall that emulation software on the Xbox 360 is a engineering marvel that it works as well as it does with what typically is some of the most hardware bound performance intensive code.

You realize that they are writing this emulator without having access to any of the specs for the CPU or GPU that were in the original xbox. It's not as simple are writing a 1:1 emulator simply because they don't have access to all the information to do that, they're effectively reverse engineering the original xbox to make sure that each game works. Because the emulation isn't perfect they don't have as large of a percentage of games, and they individually test each one. The fact that two years after release they're still updating the backwards compatibility list and still working on the emulator is pretty impressive in of itself.

The choices of CPU/GPU more or less justifies my comment. As well 2 years and ~40%, it started out at ~30% with marginal improvements. Event hat 30% was iffy. Nintendo showed they were serious about BC (or unconcerned with performance) by using an extended GC chipsets for the wii. Sony included the hardware in their machines and wrote a CPU emu.

I tried looking this up with the wayback machine, but I am having troubles connecting to it. Regardless:According to wikipedia, the xbox 360 started out with 213 games that were backwards compatible. There are now 478 games that are backwards compatible. It looks like the Xbox had 900-1000 games written for it. So, it would seem that the xbox360 originally had roughly 20% of games backwards compatible. Now it apparently has 51% of games backwards compatible. Custom writing an emulator and testing it out for

Yeah but you try getting Intel and NVidia to let you emulate their chips. I mean, if they wanted to they could even give you their original simulation code to work from but they probably have zero interest in that. Sure, they could give you the specs but there's a good chance those games ran outside of spec and exploited behaviour that wasn't even intended.

Intel is the easy part. They publish full specs for their processors on their website. You can download the PDF or even ask them to send you free printouts. Also, remember that Microsoft bought the company that made VirtualPC for the Mac. There's your x86 on PPC emulation right there.

NVidia is the harder part, but remember, all the games are coded to DirectX, which MS sets the standard for.

Microsoft don't have the specs to the CPU and GPU? Well that's amazing considering that Microsoft designed and specified the original XBox and produced the SDK developers used to make games, and the firmware it all runs on. I think Microsoft have an inkling of how their old system worked.

It would be more accurate to say that emulating hardware, even known hardware in software is *hard*. Emulating the instruction sets and APIs is probably the easy part. The hard part is realising all the horrible race cond

Many posters don't seem to grasp what happened with the original XBOX.

When building the original XBOX, MS choose to make a very "PC like" design that was essentially a specialized Windows PC. To save time and money, rather than developing their own hardware they outsourced that task to Nvidia and Intel who adapted existing parts (the NV25 and the Celeron 733) to the XBOX. Crucially however, they did not sell the production rights of those parts to Microsoft.

Fast forward a few years. The XBOX is selling nicely and Microsoft, like most console manufacturers, wants to reduce the price of the console to sell more units. Unfortunately for MS, since they don't own the rights to the GPU and couldn't reverse-engineer it, Nvidia has them over a barrel on pricing and they refuse to reduce the cost of the GPU (I'm told they were ballsy enough to actually try to raise it). Intel was much more willing to negotiate for the CPU (because they had competitors, like AMD), but that was useless without the GPU.

Because of their inability to cost-reduce the XBOX, Microsoft kills it prematurely. That's why absolutely NO XBOX games were release after 2006. Microsoft actually paid developers to have them move their games in development to the 360.

Fast forward to the launch of the 360: Without being able to include compatible hardware in the 360, MS is forced to rely on software emulation for backwards compatibility. Emulating Intel and Nvidia hardware on a Power4 system with an ATI GPU it even more difficult than it sounds. Consequently, backwards compatibility on the 360 is less that stellar.

You could blame Microsoft for this situation because they failed to ensure they held the rights to the Nvidia GPU, but personally I blame NVIDIA for being greedy. It hurt them in the end. Ever wonder why all the next-generation console have ATI GPUs? It's because of the way NVIDIA burned MS on the XBOX.

> Emulating Intel and Nvidia hardware on a Power4 system with an ATI GPU it even more difficult than it sounds.

I doubt they needed to do any significant GPU emulation -- that's what DirectX is for. I suspect the games that used nVidia-specific graphics routines are probably the same ones that have graphical artifacting, lowered framerate, or just don't have compatibility. As for the x86, it's a really well-known target, and Microsoft bought the leading PPC->x86 emulator company.

The problem is that they were unable to include the NV25 (Geforce 4) in the XBOX360 so they had to emulate some of the functions in hardware.And I suspect that while Microsoft has access to NVIDIA's internal design documents, their programmers doing the backwards compatibility specifically ARE NOT looking at them. I bet using NVIDIA's proprietary information is a violation of their contract and that the XBOX emulator in the 360 is entirely "white roomed" so Microsoft has deniablity. They have to do this bec

First off, the XBOX is DirectX 8.1-based.Second, DirectX isn't platform generic! That's one of the reasons the XBOX had to be built the way it was. On top of that, NVIDIA and ATI both had proprietary extensions to DirectX and the XBOX makes heavy use of NVIDIA's proprietary extensions, which have to be emulated on the 360.

Yes, there is a POWER4 version of DirectX 9 built for the 360/PS3, but that's just ANOTHER platform. And there's more to switching platforms than a recompile due to hardware-specific graph

Personally I'm of the opinion that if it uses the Xbox name then it should be compatible with Xbox titles.

Then why aren't PCs that run Windows Vista compatible with PC disks from the early 1980s? And why can't my Nintendo GameCube run Nintendo cartridges from the late 1980s? And why are replacement parts for Toyota Prius automobiles from older model years not necessarily compatible with newer vehicles?

Windows Vista will still run Win16 software. Results will certainly vary when that software tries interacting with other software or hardware that wasn't around in its day.The Nintendo GameCube is a different brand than the older consoles, so you wouldn't expect it to run the older games. Anything with the GameBoy name in it does run older titles in the same line though. NES / SNES you could have expectations for, and in fact Nintendo did try to make them compatible but didn't succeed.

As with x64 editions of Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003, in x86-64 versions of Windows Vista, NTVDM, the Win16 subsystem for 16-bit applications is no longer present. (This includes all applications for DOS, Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0 and Windows 3.x.)

Or are you talking about running an older version of Windows inside Virtual PC inside Windows Vista?

Windows is a software platform. Playstation is a hardware platform. Different beasts.

Is Mac OS X also a hardware platform under your analysis because it's locked to one company's hardware?

Windows maintains all compatibility it possibly can.

No, it does not. A PowerPC processor cannot run 68K code, so Mac OS 7 through 9 had an emulator to run 68K code on PowerPC. An Intel processor cannot run PowerPC code, so Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 have an emulator to run PowerPC code on x86. So if an x86 processor in 64-bit mode cannot run 16-bit code, then why doesn't Windows include an emulator to run 16-bit code on an x86 processor in 64-bit mode?

well, they're rolling down the ability to download Xbox 1 games thought the marketplace soon. Reports indicate that these will be little more than disc rips of the original games running on the BC feature of the console.

As nice a media piece about them still "caring" about BC on the 360 at this point I have no doubt it's driven by money... the more they support in BC the more they can pad their Xbox 1 download catalog when they roll it out (probably around the same time as the update).

...and the more 120GB drives they can sell (as part of the Elite SKU or separately) when people realise that Xbox 1 games can be fairly big.
Or is that just me being far too cynical?
250GB drives within the next 18 months, anyone?

I believe that they are wrapped in DRM that is tied specifically to the serial of the xbox that downloads it. So even if you download a game to the HD, and take that drive to another machine, the game does not work. This has been a real problem with bricked 360's because you have to contact CS to have them set up so you can download them on the new machine.

They're tied to the console AND your Xbox Live profile (and to be clear everyone who downloads the game will have an Xbox live profile and most Xbox Live profiles do not have an associated subscription fee despite popular belief).

This mean that YES you CAN take your hard drive to another console and play your downloaded games but you'll have to also sign into your Xbox Live account to validate that you're the content owner. The problem comes when you try to use it on the new console and you don't have in

You are completely right but for the wrong reason. DRM on the files has nothing to do with why external media cannot be used... External USB mass storage devices are READ ONLY and the console simply doesn't look in those locations for game content. So not only can you not download to those devices, if you managed to put game content on them (using any number of readily available and legal PC tools) the console will never check for content there.

"As nice a media piece about them still "caring" about BC on the 360 at this point I have no doubt it's driven by money... the more they support in BC the more they can pad their Xbox 1 download catalog when they roll it out (probably around the same time as the update)."

Speak for yourself. Demon Stone is a really fun game, and I've actually wanted to play it again for awhile now but I'm far too lazy to bring up my Xbox from the basement, find the VGA adapter for it, plug it all in and play. Dark Alliance too, both of these games are really fun if you have a buddy over to do co-op with. (I can't speak for the other titles in this update, as I haven't played them.)

Not for those of us who went from PS2 to XBox 360, which I suspect is a good chunk of folks. I never got to play KOTOR for example (has that made the list yet?), and the fun I'm having with Mass Effect makes me want to go check out earlier Bioware offerings. I also finally got to play Morrowind (after loving Oblivion) thanks to the backward compatibility. Heck, I only just played Halo *1* this year.:)

I never got to play KOTOR for example (has that made the list yet?), and the fun I'm having with Mass Effect makes me want to go check out earlier Bioware offerings

KOTOR 1 and 2 as well as Jade Empire (same engine as KOTOR, more of an active battle system similar to Mass Effect except with martial arts instead of guns) have been supported on BC for quite some time now. If you haven't played them, you really must. Especially if you're enjoying Mass Effect.

But really what I'd appreciate is some sort of network inspection, topology tool so you could figure out who was the best choice to host in a game. Even in circumstances when there's not much to do about a problem, like latency, it'd be better to just know what and where the problem was, as opposed to just observing it and wondering about its origin. Not to mention, all the data put together would give a very good measure of network performance offered by the various ISPs.

It is when you aren't getting anything in return for it (that you shouldn't be getting for free). Paying for online access isn't wrong... paying for online access, when Microsoft doesn't even go so far as to host dedicated servers, is fucking absurd. At that point, it's devolved into "We're Microsoft, and we take your money just cause we can!".

Truthfully, I haven't had many problems with the peer-to-peer system of the xbox live service. There are times when the lag is noticeable, but more often then not the games play just fine. I do agree that dedicated servers would be nice but I tend to think "fucking absurd" is a bit of an exageration. Why are people always so polarized in these forums?

If Microsoft isn't using your money to provide dedicated servers... what on earth are they providing in exchange for said money? Seems to me that they're taking it because they can, ie, fucking absurd.

Well, I guess what you and I consider "fucking absurd" varies greatly. I tend to save extreme expletives for more dire situations. Five dollars a month doesn't quite cut it. I spend more on lunch each day than that. Besides, aside from the whole dedicated server thing, x-box live is awesome, easily the best online service available for consoles. And let's not forget, any company is free at anytime to create dedicated servers for their own games. Apparently EA does it for a lot of their games (http://e

Yes, any company is free to create dedicated servers. Yes, $5/month isn't much. The point is... what, exactly, is Microsoft providing us with in exchange for our money (however little or much it may be)? As far as I can tell, the answer is... nothing. They're taking our money because they can. That's the absurd thing, and I'll get worked up about that whether it's $50/year or $.50/year! When I provide money to a company, I expect something in return for my payment, not abuse of a monopoly position.

well, I think I can name a few things you get for your five dollars a month. First, the matchmaking service. Sure, it's not as good as dedicated servers, but it is a service, isn't it? Second, a friends list to keep you in contact with your fellow gamers. That too is a service. Third, instant messaging and voice chat that works inside any game. Fourth, downloadable content, a lot of which is free (I got hooked on the Heroes series after watching the first episode for free off xbox live).I could go on

We live in a time where everyone feels "entitled" to things. I think that's sad.

Perhaps. My beef has nothing to do with entitlement, though. Microsoft is charging, and if I feel their services aren't worth what they charge, I have every right to be dissatisfied (and no, I don't pay for Xbox Live). That's not entitlement, that's simply business. Microsoft is also going into a market, and trying to get people to pay for something typically offered for free. It should be no surprise that there's resistance.

You're right that you probably won't convince me, but that has more to do with t

I also just noticed another argument that you made that I'm a little uncomfortable with. I kind of passed by it previously but it caught my eye today. You stated that Microsoft was abusing it's monopoly status. How does Microsoft have a monoply in the console arena? Last time I checked, Sony and Nintendo had both sold more units (current and last gen) than Microsoft has. That's not really a monopoly. It kind of makes me wonder if you would get so upset about the five dollars a month if it was anyone o

I must've not been clear. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on consoles, you're absolutely correct. What I meant is that on their own console, Microsoft has an absolute monopoly with everything. Thus, they can charge for Live because if you want to play 360 games online, you have no other option. I didn't mean that Microsoft has a true monopoly.

The difference, of course, between Microsoft and Blizzard/Square-Enix is that they actually provide servers! I understand the justification in charging for those g

crap. I said I wasn't going to reply, and now I'm gonna make myself a liar. I'm just really bored today I guess.

To say that Microsoft has a monopoly on their own console is a truism and there's really no point in it. The fact that the videogame industry is now able to support three consoles instead of two goes to show that lack of choice isn't much of an issue. "Monopoly" is just a buzz word people love to throw around whenever speaking of Microsoft and sticking it into a truism just to validate it g

How about the cost to actually come up with and create the service. "Microsoft who apparently feels entitled to my money"?! Thats ridiculous, seriously, I know that MS comes to your door and demands that you subscribe to this optional service, but you could always try NOT doing it.If you don't find value in the offerings of the product: DON'T USE IT, go get a PS3, or play on PC. Whining on message-boards seems to be a rather fruitless solution.

If you don't find value in the offerings of the product: DON'T USE IT, go get a PS3

Uh, yeah, I did that too. I have both a PS3 and a 360, and I play online games on the PS3.

Whining on message-boards seems to be a rather fruitless solution.

Okay, I don't get it. I should not complain about something I don't like because you think complaining does no good? It's a free market, you know. That doesn't only mean that corporations can do whatever the fuck they want, it also means that I can complain about it if I don't like it, and maybe convince others that it's a bad thing which they sh

True.I own all three current-gen systems, but I don't pay for live, so I usually buy the PS3 version of online titles. Unfortunately, in some cases, the PS3 version never comes out, is way late, or sucks (see: Orange Box). So I complain.

Basically, Microsoft expects me to pay for something I should get for free. If Sony can host Warhawk games without me paying for it, why does Microsoft expect me to pay for not hosting online games? Paying for Live sucks, so I'm not going to do it, but not paying hurts my Xb

A 3-month game card (the link I found to the 12 month was broken and the "sign up" link on the UK XBox site does nothing when I click on it) costs £15 (~$30). And for something you get for free (PS3, DS, Wii) or for $10 per year (Gamespy) elsewhere, yes, $5-10 a month is substantial.

I'm a bit unclear here. Explain this to me: What do I get on the 360 that I do not get on the PS3? My PS3 has a global friend list, messaging, matchmaking, it even has hosted servers. What would I get for my 360 if I payed for Live that I do not already get for free on the PS3?

But Microsoft don't price competitively. They charge 5-12 times what GameSpy charge for the same service and infinitely more than Sony and Nintendo. $5-10 a month would be reasonable for access to high quality hosted servers and $0 per month would be reasonable to allow you to play directly using an XBox as the server. AFAIK, there is no option but XBox Live Gold if you want to play on-line, you can't just type in the IP of your clan server or find a free, public server.

Bittorrent is good for P2P and non-profit stuff (Linux ISOs, for example), but for commercial content distribution I feel the same way as I do about XBox Live - they can either pay me (in the form of a discount) to cover the cost of the bandwidth I'm providing or pay for their own f*ing bandwidth.

They are paying you, in the form of a discount. Compare to the price of having new DVDs shipped to your door.

I hate to play the part of the irrelevant picky asshole, but I *hate* it when people say "infinitely more". It's a matter of several dollars more per unit time (I don't know the actual amount in US currency and don't care to look it up).

It isn't even infinitely times as many, because ((n | n != 0) / 0) doesn't equal infinity. You just cannot divide by zero in the most commonly used number systems.

Anyway. I don't pay for Xbox Live Gold, because I don't play multiplayer. Yippee.

Your error is in assuming the cost of playing on the other systems is zero. It's not, it's just extremely small (say, the additional energy cost of sending the data) - one might say the cost is infinitesimal. See? The maths does work. Seriously though, it was just hyperbole. Applying strict mathematical definitions outside of that context is just going to stress you out for no reason. I gave up caring that people say "weight" when they really mean "mass" a long time ago. Life's too short.

paying again for the network connection i already have paid for is senseless. I boycott xboxlive gold... ridiculous that they charge us for servers. servers are what get us to buy/pay-for the game. any PC game company does this for free - or.. lets you peer-to-peer it or run your own server for free...even the dumb video camera requires xboxlive gold subscription. on PS3 you can video conference over standard network connection - no subscription... and i hate ps3, but they have this one thing right.I

Indeed, I thought that was how it worked when I got the xbox. The user hosted game sessions really suck in most games. Specially for a casual player like me.Half of my time are wasted on finding good sessions and when I only can squeeze an hour in here and there to play, it is mostly useless.

they might get fixed... with every update that adds games they usually improve just as many past profiles as well. With that said PGR2 is a great title but owning a 360 I'd much rather be playing PGR4 these days.

On XBox Live, if you frag a friend, then a friend of that friend, and so on to the depth of six people... Kevin Bacon eventually calls you "teh gey" whilst sounding like a thirteen year old boy with hormonal issues.

I just received an e-mail that said for every friend that you frag Microsoft will send you a dollar, and for every friend that that friend frags they will send you a quarter. It was something about some new friend tracking system that Microsoft has been working on since the beginning of e-mail.

Even better. I'm going to send out a letter saying my friend is a lawyer and that this really works! Have all your friends send you a dollar, then all their friends' friends send you a dollar, to six degrees, you'll be a millionaire!.. or at least that what the letters they keep sending me say.

I'm glad to see that Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance is on the list. I greatly enjoyed co-op multiplayer action RPGs like that back in the XBox/PS2 days. I think I'll grab a used copy at lunchtime; plenty of entertainment for only $12 and my Wife will enjoy playing through it again.
I know Dark Alliance 2 has been on the list forever, but its so rare that it still commands upwards of $30 for a used copy in Gamestop. Besides, Dark Alliance was a much tighter game and had much less 'filler' than its rather lack

especially considering how well Sony offered complete backward compatibility so perfectly on the PS2. Nowadays, it's lost so much relevence that the "feature" is almost non-existent on the PS3 and exists only an incrimental add-on for the most mediocre of titles on the 360. (Legal issues on who owns what on the original Xbox's hardware, not withstanding...)The only console to have it right on this generation is the Wii. (Which, strangely enough, may be why it's still doing so well despite the surprising lar

especially considering how well Sony offered complete backward compatibility so perfectly on the PS2. Nowadays, it's lost so much relevence that the "feature" is almost non-existent on the PS3 and exists only an incrimental add-on for the most mediocre of titles on the 360. (Legal issues on who owns what on the original Xbox's hardware, not withstanding...)

To be fair, complaining about the Playstation backwards compatibility, and comparing it next to the Xbox, isn't a fair fight. The Xbox doesn't even co

To be fair, complaining about the Playstation backwards compatibility, and comparing it next to the Xbox, isn't a fair fight. The Xbox doesn't even come close, especially if you look at the generation 1 PS3's (60 gig, with hardware based emulation).

especially considering how well Sony offered complete backward compatibility so perfectly on the PS2

It's not. The PS2 ran the same code (common MIPS architecture processor) and had the same IO controller for audio and controller access as the original Playstation. Compatibility was assured through hardware. The graphics controller was also superficially similar - enough at least to let your games run, just faster and with some blending tacked on top.

Nintendo hit the same concept with the Wii being able to play Gamecube games - it practically *is* a Gamecube, just faster.

The PS3 also includes some of the original components of the PS2 for compatibility's sake although they are starting to get rid of those right now, and they never worked so well. The Xbox 360 ain't even slightly like the original Xbox. New CPU, new IO, new graphics controller.. the whole thing is software emulation. It should be said that Sony and Microsoft have different compatibility goals - Microsoft want to keep Xbox owners happy by letting them use their old games and back catalogue (Nintendo have the same goal). After all in a world where Halo and Halo 2 (or Metroid Prime and Echoes) did so well, do you really want gamers to start from the third game and lose the ability to play the saga from the start?:)

Sony have decided nobody wants to buy a $500 console to play 8 year old games so they're ditching the feature. Since they continue selling the PS2 at ridiculously affordable prices, there's no point making the PS3 compatible. It's not like you can still buy a Gamecube or Xbox brand new, though, these days.

Sony have decided nobody wants to buy a $500 console to play 8 year old games so they're ditching the feature. Since they continue selling the PS2 at ridiculously affordable prices, there's no point making the PS3 compatible. It's not like you can still buy a Gamecube or Xbox brand new, though, these days.

That "ridiculously affordable price" for the PS2 is still $130, which means you have to spend $630 rather than just $500 to get PS2 and PS3 support (assuming you don't already have a PS2, of course). As

$630 dollars huh?If I get a 400 dollar PS3 and a $99 PS2 (read the news more, that's the coming revision), I pay the same price as the $500 PS3 that runs PS2 games fairly well. It seems like Sony is letting me decide if I want the feature. I can also get a sued PS2... or if I'm like most gamers, use the one I already own.

And my PS2 controllers seem to work really well on my PS3. Even on PS3 games. Any PS2 to PC usb adaptor works (you can get 'em for $5). I'll write off the comments about power plugs, e

It's right, but still not perfect. The GameCube can play Game Boy, Game Boy Color, and Game Boy Advance games through an accessory. No such accessory is made for Wii. Nor can the (admittedly few) GameCube games with online support go online because the Wii's Wi-Fi chip doesn't look like a GameCube LAN adapter.

Sony still does offer complete backward compatibility for PS1 games on all PS3s. One model that's much cheaper than the rest is available for people who don't want or need BC. One other model that's currently in production had software backwards compatibility with almost 1800 titles at release and probably has even more now, as opposed to only 465 XBOX titles available even now, two years later.

Nowadays, it's lost so much relevence that the "feature" is almost non-existent on the PS3

How is this "insightful"?

If by "almost non-existent" you mean: "supports a much larger percentage of the previous generation's library than the 360, had a larger library to support in the first place, and goes back two generations", then yeah. That's almost non-existent. Oh, unless you buy the one model that doesn't support backwards compatibility in order to be sold at a discount... But even that model supports back

It sounds like you should be buying your Xbox live accounts on the per-month basis. This will prevent you from purchasing a service you won't use.

Now a what-if for you: What if you play a bunch of multiplayer games on a regular basis? Should that person be charged more because they play different titles? Better yet - why not pay according to time used - that would work perfectly with my AOL dial-up account!

All joking aside, Xbox live offers a service that allows people to have a highly reliable online